Appeal No. 2000-0402
Application 08/720,399
no particular language in the Oba disclosure which teaches such a part file staging area.
Similarly, although column 9 to column 11 is identified as showing the claimed product
engineering workstation, the examiner never identifies what, exactly, in Oba, is being relied on
for correspondence to this claimed element.
Then, the examiner recites a long litany of elements and their functions as not being
disclosed by Oba but being disclosed by Beasley. However, while the examiner identifies long
sections of text within Beasley, e.g., column 1, line 39 to column 4, line 3, as disclosing the
various recited claim elements, the examiner, again, fails to identify anything in particular, within
the reference, that corresponds to the claimed elements.
While Moore-McKee is correctly identified as disclosing the operation of a computer to
automatically produce control software in an earthmoving machine, there is no convincing
rationale as to why or how any teachings of Oba and/or Beasley are to be combined with
Moore-McKee. The rationale that this modification would provide Oba’s teaching with the
enhanced capability of processing a product efficiently while maintaining the average rate of
variables within the parameters and thereby the process and operation of the machinery is
monitored and controlled rapidly is meaningless as it recites general platitudes about efficiency
and rapid control but is empty in the details department.
In our view, and particularly in view of no disclosure by Oba or Beasley as having any
relevance to a system for producing production control software for a plurality of electronic
control modules, let alone for use on earthmoving machines for controlling machine operation,
the examiner has presented no cogent rationale as to how the elements disclosed by the applied
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007